Search results
Originally named simply The Vault, the wiki was split into two independently-run sites: The Vault and Nukapedia, in 2011. The two wikis decided to merge in December 2019, "completing" the process of importing The Vault content to Nukapedia in January 2022.
- Overview
- Summary of the merge thus far
- Bureaucrat stance
- Votes
- Comments
- Proposed merge guidelines
- Result
Forums: Index > Wiki proposal votes > Nukapedia The Vault merge formal vote
Following the outcome of the proposal merge guidelines, the vote has been restarted.
“I've used both for a while as a lurker, with the occasional edit. I've already made my stance heard in TV's discord server. I am 100% behind the merge. There is no reason why we should have a split community. From a casual user's perspective (something i think could be overlooked); not only does this provide a better service to the end user but it also means the content would be of a much higher quality. I believe a merged site would also promote more active participation in editing. It is a lot easier to get involved if it is all in one place. The positives outweigh any negatives that might arise.”— Zealous Champion, one of several users who commented on the blog post
Following the discussion on the merge between Nukapedia and The Vault, and a passed related guideline policy, the vote has been restarted.
•The Vault editors have crossed over with minimal issues and have seamlessly integrated into our wiki
•Numerous articles covering Fallout 76 and franchise-wide lore have been merged. Apart from enhancing our coverage, this unification also allowed an opportunity to review, source, and overhaul certain articles, including the removal of long-standing misconceptions and fanon inserted over eleven years ago; the Mister Handy article was the culprit and the issues have since been rectified.
•Several thousand files depicting Fallout 76 locations and Atomic Shop assets have been already uploaded and are in the process of being placed in the appropriate articles on the wiki. Other assets include high resolution logotypes and faction insignia provided by Vault's users. Raw assets for Wastelad and other internal data have also been accessed and presented.
•Templates are in the early stages of importation. One major example is Template:Interactions univ, which replaces the old system with an instantly readable list of character interactions. Feedback from other editors will help refine these templates even further.
•Several hundred plan articles have been imported, with slight issues. These have been since rectified.
•Overall, the merge has gone over smoothly, with only minute issues and a handful of disagreements.
Jspoel
Since the merge made a start three weeks ago, things have been gone as well as could be hoped for I think. Many, especially important faction/lore pages, have been revisited, and updated content has been implemented, with excellent referencing. What could have become a feared issue, as noted in the blog, is that we would face challenges/arguments between users from the Vault and Nukapedia, and to my welcome surprise, I've personally not experienced/seen much of it (I may have missed some from Discord). From hundreds of pages, notably also location pages, The Vault content has been combined with Nukapedia content, with little issue. Of almost all those pages, the content grew with referencing and great images. I understand that in Discord, there may be still some lingering concerns/personal issues. I even myself had a small issue earlier this week, but I feel it easily outweighs the greater good that's at stake here, namely a combined and strong as can be Fallout wiki, with a return to our roots. With Tagaziel as a professional stronghold with template/css/programming/asset expertise we will have a continued solid base to make content better and can also improve various layouts on the wiki. As I said during the split end of 2011, there's really no point in separating (again), we must settle possible differences and make the best of it, think positive, grab a hold of this unique opportunity and continue with the merge.
DistustingWastelander
I think a merge seems very good. I have never been a fan of two wikis existing alongside each other with the same content, competing, when really joining forces would be the best outcome for both. Of course I have worries, for example whether simply giving someone rights may feel weird for some regular users, or that conflicts will arise regarding the content of articles, but generally, I think the net positives of a merge greatly outweigh the negative. It will not be an easy task, but I urge everyone to take part and help out in the process.
Richie9999
Richie will keep a neutral stance.
Yes
1.I think my vote in this matter is obvious. I was one of the people who followed Ausir over to Gamepedia and helped keep The Vault alive over the past eight years, but after Curse became a part of the Fandom family, the only reason to stay apart disappeared into thin air. Rather than continue this artificial division and distribute the talent, unification allows us to tap into two pools of immense talent and create the definitive guide to Fallout and its lore. The merge thus far demonstrated the potential behind unification, combining major overhauls with much needed critical appraisals - from both Nukapedia and Vault editors. The content is better, the reliability is improved, and the discussions help create consensus that works and allows us to address contentious issues. Sometimes it means rewording, at other times cutting, and in the end, we all achieve our common goal: Making the ultimate resource for Fallout lore and gameplay data. On a personal note, it's also good to reconnect with people after growing and maturing. Now I know what I've been missing. Tagaziel (call!) 12:18, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 2.See stance. Jspoel 14:33, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 3.Despite some constant criticism in the discord, I'm in full favor of the merger. Nothing but good can happen for the Fallout fan community and importantly the end-user of either wiki. Combining each wiki's greatest strengths into one place is the best course of action in my opinion, and the quality of the articles that can now stand on either its gameplay content or lore content. Devastating DaveZIP ZAP RAP 16:09, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 4.I made my point on the Discussion about the merge blog (linked in article) and stand by my silly name suggestion.LBraden (talk) 5.Although there have been some rocky patches in the advent of the merger, for all things considered, it's gone very well. Like other votes here, I'm fully in favor of the merger, and hope it will bring new opportunities to everyone, old and new. As Tagaziel said, the goal of the wiki is to make the ultimate resource for Fallout lore and gameplay data. And with this merger and how things have gone thus far, I wouldn't have it any other way. JCB2077 (talk) 16:25, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 6.I am fully in favor of the merger continuing forward. {{SUBST:User:Legofan/Signature}} 7.I believe it is the smartest decision we can make at the moment. Id say we have reached the point where dividing and conquering is redundant, and for the betterment of all Fallout knowledge, we should unite. As Abraham Lincoln once said: A house divided against itself cannot stand. --Dankalor😳 16:28, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 8.If I may, I found the Vault wiki to be a nice place as I found some information from that place rather intriguing, and I do agree more with what they have in store for the lore in comparison to Nukapedia which specializes more with gameplay. I think if they merged, we'd get a massive combination of both lore information to make people invested, while also having the elements from Nukapedia to know any tips and tricks that can help out if need be. So yes, I do think this merge would help out with the upcoming years. User: Scout Trooper 164 13:29, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 9.this change will lead to the betterment of the wiki at the end of the day, with badmin rule being overruled and goodmins being pushed in to allow change after years of badmin abuse. Go team With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 17:33, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 10.I believe that a merge is in due order now. In the past, there have indeed been things keeping us apart, but a merge is better now to be sure. For one, this merger may very well be needed to salvage the complete wreck that has come about to the Nukapedia community. So far, this merger has already helped in my eyes, even if it has led to some internal distrusts; I believe the ends will justify the means. Nukapedia's community notwithstanding, the Vault also has plenty of its own community to offer, and I believe that the particulars of community dealings will be worked out in due time as well. As for the wiki space itself, there are obviously going to be disagreements on which wiki's policies are better, but that is why we have staff to decide. Combining both sources of information together again shall give us the best of both worlds if done properly. I, for one, have no problem with nice and long articles combining our full knowledge. Finally, I believe that much of the criticism of this merge has been highly on the technical side; "no real discussion," for example, despite the fact that most of those complaining about no discussion themselves did not comment on the blog post announcing this in the first place.... And as I have already addressed, I believe the discrepancies between wikis can be worked out in due course. I hope this goes as planned. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 17:40, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 11.lol at people pretending discussion wasn't happening when they chose to ignore the discussions that were happening. - Chris 18:58, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 12.The merge has been going very smoothly so far and is a great boon the the entire Fallout community. I see absolutely no reason why the merge should be canceled, stalled or otherwise. The content already added to this wiki by Vault members has been superb, with much more on the way. While there have been a few minor challenges, as brought up by many "no" voters, these are certainly no reason to put this on ice. As a very casual editor I've already seen and even participated in many of the discussions that brought us to this point. As Chris said, these users had ample chance to participate and did not. A lot of them are also support the merger but are voting "no" for reasons that you can read below. I understand their issues, but i feel that if you truely support this merger, you should be voting "yes" and writing your grievances here, as opposed to risking this entire endeavour upon misunderstandings and laziness. I vote "yes" and i would urge all others to do the same. Zealous Champion (talk) 13.There's no question that the merge should take place. Fandom and Gamepedia are no longer entirely separate, and it's not efficient to build up two near-identical wikis about the same thing instead of focusing on just one. My personal involvement with the merge is minimal, but it's inaccurate to suggest that there has been "little discussion" about it already. There has been a dedicated channel about it on the Nukapedia Discord for three weeks, and it's been under discussion on the wiki as a whole for a month. The obsession many people here have with strict "adherence to policy" is misaligned and insignificant in the greater scheme of things. No amount of "prior discussion" is possibly going to change the fact that merging is messy—indeed, my home wiki of Elder Scrolls is the product of three major merges—but this is a transient issue. I think there have been plenty of opportunities for discussion already, and there is nothing stopping anyone from continuing to discuss it right now and in the future. —Atvelonis (talk) 20:17, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 14.As just a Fallout fan and not the Wiki Manager, I think that though obstacles may exist and the road may not be entirely bump-free, merging a long-fractured community is better in the long run. ◄► Tephra ◄► 22:35, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 15.My opinion is well known on the matter at this point. Acj1225 (talk) 16.A merge sounds good, doesn't it? -- Extrinitus (talk) 02:04, September 30, 2019 (UTC) 17.Quite frankly, I believe that there's quite a plethora of positive outcomes that could come out of the merge, along with the introduction of new staff, as well as the alterations of articles around the Wiki. Putting aside the negative outcomes (if any), I have to vote yes on this matter. UrbanAnge1 (talk) 07:30, September 30, 2019 (UTC) 18.Why not, we're partway through already, no sense to pull out now especially when its going over better than I projected LovinglyGaslight (talk) 10:58, September 30, 2019 (UTC) 19.I do agree that hearing about this earlier would be nice, but the potential benefit of the merger far outweighs those concerns. veryblackraven 15:50, September 30, 2019 (UTC) 20.As a heavy contributor to The Vault, coming back from a long break to the news of a merge onto Fandom wasn't something I was too excited about. Getting assimilated into the Nukapedia side of things was a pretty quick wake up call that the years of parallel editing by our two wikis was an artificial challenge for both our editors and the people coming to either site for information. Working together on one platform saves us time, increases our talent pool of technical and lore information, and ultimately makes it easier for players of the games to find the content they want (which is the core of all of our missions in the first place). Let's make that content the best that we, as the Fallout wiki community, can. Brantmeierz (talk) 16:08, September 30, 2019 (UTC) 21.I believe the end result of a unified wiki with all the Fallout wiki editors working together will be worth both the amount of time it will take and any disagreements that arise among users. I think the biggest challenge will be merging the communities, the people, not only to one wiki but to one idea, with time this will happen and it will be reflected in the quality of content. Enclave Soldier Elliott (talk) 19:21, September 30, 2019 (UTC) 22.Just, yes. I'm too lazy to write too much. SoleSurvivor'sMinutemen (talk) 22:45 September 30 (UTC+3) 23.but with reservations. Both wikis have issues with their content. Both have numerous instances of unsourced statements, speculation being taken as fact, non-canon sources being treated as hard fact and conflating of real-world statements with in-world canon/lore. Merging the two is only going to make these problems even worse. Shopuld the merge occur, there needs to be a thorough clean-up of content in the aftermath to deal with these problems. --Darthfish (talk) 02:42, October 1, 2019 (UTC) 24.I see no reason for the merge not to happen now, so long as the issues raised during the discussion, and their solutions, are kept in mind. Aiden4017 (talk) 02:17, October 26, 2019 (UTC) 25.I vote in favor of the merge, because I believe a more unified Wiki/Forum would be better for the community in the long run. However, I feel it is everyone's best interest if we head what the people voting no are saying, just because the Yes vote wins doesn't automatically make everyone change perspective. So I believe it is important to keep that in mind moving forward. LocalMaxTax (talk) 20:04, October 25, 2019 (UTC-8) 26.I vote in favor because of all the reasons stated above.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:29, October 26, 2019 (UTC) 27.sounds good to me. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 09:04, October 26, 2019 (UTC) 28.It is easier for me as a modder to only have one source for information that doesn’t conflict with others. LeoTheLeopardNZ (talk) 18:19, October 26, 2019 (UTC) 29.Consider this a tentative yes. I have concerns regarding the methods we've used thus far to merge content together, but on the whole I'm in strong support of this merger. As long as my bug sections remain in good condition. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:17, October 28, 2019 (UTC) 30.We've talked out the major issues so far. Anything that hits us down the road will be easier to solve by focusing the minds of Vault and Nukapedia contributors on one centralized Fallout encyclopedia. Don't give up the ship! 18:59, October 30, 2019 (UTC) 31.It's the best thing for the fandom as a whole but it would be disingenuous of me to say that I didn't feel a little strongarmed into it. I think the process as a whole has been carried out incredibly poorly and has sown a not insignificant amount of disharmony within the community (I personally have found it incredibly unpleasant). However, there is no benefit for the fandom in having a fragmented Fallout knowledge base so I am obliged to support this merge based on the principle of the thing. --L84tea Would you like a cup of tea? 06:57, October 31, 2019 (UTC) 32.I believe the wiki merger will ultimately be beneficial for the everyone, regardless of whatever growing pains have been had thus far. It would be naive to expect no further trouble just because a vote passes, but the fact that both communities have had a decent voting turn out with most expressing an interest in coming together should at least be evidence of a willingness to try seeing this through. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 05:58, November 1, 2019 (UTC) 33.I have stated my stance multiple times prior. Acj1225 (talk) November 1, 2019 34.I support the joining of our two wikis in order to make one superior large wiki 1+1=1after all.W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk)
No
1.Since this vote was started without any formal discussions, as required for an official vote, I'm going to have vote no. Maybe if there were actual discussions, things wouldn't seem so seemless to those ignoring others' issues. Paladin117>>iff bored; 16:02, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 2.No real discussion among the users of the wiki was made prior to this vote, if that happens I might change my vote, otherwise I'll have to simply say no. Dragão Carmesim 16:13, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 3.I don't really oppose the merge, but in terms of this vote, Pally is correct. More discussions are needed before anything else happens, and they're discussions that should have happened earlier. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 16:17, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 4.I'm with Pally here. Second, I was waiting for a forum like this and the Nukacrats and Cursecrats decided it would be funny to skip proper voting process and jump to big guns. Just because a lot of people agree (or don’t mind) on the blog about something doesn’t mean you should go make the changes instantly, some people like me wouldn’t agree to this you know. We need an official voting process before we make changes, not the other way around. Its just not right; or fair to us ‘no voters’ who were against the merge. --Cassie The Rodio Girl I see you.。✿ 16:21, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 5.As others stated, little discussion. And the merge is not going over as smoothly as this forum is trying to suggest. I would like for their to be a merger between our communities, but let's actually discuss these things first and not jump ship without a life-vest. Try a merger later, actually discuss and plan for any issues that can occur (not just worry about things later), have mutual respect, take the best of both sites. Those'r my requirements for a "Yes" vote. Is that too much to ask for? Saxhleel12 (talk) 16:29, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 6.As others have stated, there was an obvious lack of planning and discussion with the people about this. I’m also not a fan of this vote not going through the proper channels before being voted on. This whole ordeal seems much messier than implied here. The rest of my opinion is per Sax. Laat the Survivor (talk) 16:45, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 7.Like the others, I'm of the opinion that the merge is a great idea - but jumping into this immediately with little-to-no discussion prior to the vote, especially given the significant hiccups in the merging process that the Yes voters seem either unaware of or unconcerned about, is not something I can give a "yes" to. Mara and Paladin's concerns in the "comments" of this vote are my biggest issues. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 17:00, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 8.If I may have the audacity to come back from the dead and harp my opinion on matters I've been completely ignorant of up until two weeks ago, Pally is absolutely right. Nobody can assume that there is nothing to discuss and go straight to a vote according to the regulations here. That a matter of this magnitude has gone to a vote without a proper discussion is beyond peculiar to me and is not the Nukapedia I remember. For what it's worth, I believe a merger is the right course of action, but I believe that deviating from protocol to do it disrespects all those who voted for, continuously adhere to, and agree with the many regulations that guide the content that all readers use. But if that is how the community wants to start off this merger, then they certainly can by voting yes here. I am voting no because I do not believe that to be the case based on my renewed two weeks of contact with wiki affairs. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 17:05, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 9.As many other people on this forum, I think the merge is a good idea, but due to a lack of a formal vote before the decision was made, I vote no. As for the people that are saying that the merge isn't going smoothly, they're not wrong. I've seen many an argument on discord about policies being ignored. Following these policies gives us credibility and thus it is of maximum importance to follow them. This lack of communication reminds of the time Laat was unbanned. Only one person was consulted about that action leaving the rest with a surprise without knowing what was going on. Many of us staff members were not against unbanning Laat but we were against not being consulted on the decision. It is clear that the higher-ups of this community need to consult with staff and the wider community on important decisions. I hope this issue will be left in the past soon. Jgrsoto 17:58, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 10.We need more discussion and community input. User:ThatRaidingRaider 11.Like I’ve expressed on discord, much more discussion is needed before a merge. I do hope to see a merge in the long run, but a change of this magnitude definitely needs more community input, discussion, and agreement on a variety of matters beforehand. Skysteam (talk) 01:50, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
Neutral
1.--ExplorerSmaily (talk) 22:17, September 29, 2019 (UTC) 2.I disagree that the initial merge has gone as smoothly as purported and share a lot, if not all, of the concerns expressed by the no voters as well as those in the comments (which there is no need for me to rehash, although I shall if this is desired). However, not only do I support a merge in principle, I do believe that we are now too far down the rabbit hole to be able to climb back up, so I cannot in good conscience vote no. I also cannot wholeheartedly vote yes because I don't want to gloss over that 1) this process has not been as rosy as the description would have me believe and 2) the issues that are being raised by the 'No' voters are important ones which need to be addressed. Edit: I agree with everything Dekker has said below. --L84tea Would you like a cup of tea? 07:13, October 1, 2019 (UTC) Vote changed. 3.Sorry I'm late. I loved the idea of the merge when it was first proposed, but was afraid it would be rushed so I suggested to take things slowly, especially the earlier stages: Introducing the new staff, getting to know each other, see how we work, and so on. Jspoelstra was skeptical of my idea because he wanted our fellow Vaulters to feel welcome more than anything. While I too want them to feel welcome, I think we should stop mixing up "making them feel welcome" with "not opposing them out of fear they will cancel the merge". Because we have been doing the latter, errors, inconsistencies, and policy violations have been imported all over and fixing them has been deferred to no-one and no time in particular. With this topic, those who have had negative or critical opinions are finally given the voice they wanted. The reason I have not expressed these feelings before was because I did not want to be "that guy" who opposed and delayed this great thing and got everyone hung up on little details. But with others expressing these feelings I see now that I wasn't the only one. Don't get me wrong, the merge is a great prospect for everyone, both editors and readers. But I feel that there is too little consistent vision and when I look at some page merges I simply feel very frustrated and demotivated, knowing that what I see will create a lot of work in the near future. At the start of the merge, Jspoel explained that the first few weeks would be a "trial" of sorts, after which we could always back down. That trial is now over, and I don't think we should back down. Right now we're postponing maintenance indefinitely, and any software engineer can tell you that's a bad idea. I think we should change our attitude and increase the quality expected of merged content. Those who merge pages should take more time to iron out inconsistencies, rewrite, rename, and so on in a holistic fashion. This will slow down the process but will be of great benefit to the quality and consistency on the wiki. The first next step would be to gather complaints and reconcile them. Then, while continuing to allow for discussions, we can continue the merge. You can't make everyone happy, but that is no reason to dismiss unhappy people. With Jspoel and Tagaziel as editing powerhouses I think we can pull this off, but we need a feedback loop in there, and that means that there will be confrontation. - FDekker talk 08:39, October 1, 2019 (UTC) I'm very glad to see that there are now clear guidelines that all users can refer to when they have concerns or doubts. They help with accountability and clarify the procedure for all parties. The way forward is together, and together we can figure this out. As before, while we have our differences, I don't think they are insurmountable if we work together. While I'm inclining towards a yes vote, I feel that my absence these past weeks has made me too uninformed to qualify for a vote. I don't have any particular concerns but then again I don't know if I should be having any. At least this vote is much more positive than my previous one! - FDekker talk 09:07, October 31, 2019 (UTC) 4.The specifics of wiki-wide practices have long eluded me for years now so I don't feel qualified to vote one way or the other. I am only pleased to see the practice of having formal discussions before votes being implemented properly. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 03:13, October 26, 2019 (UTC) 5.I still can't in good conscience give a "yes" given that the new guidelines don't really solve the issue of people ignoring the guidelines, but like I said in my initial "no" I think the merge is necessary and inevitable, and we've at least had time to properly discuss the issue this time around. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 19:06, October 28, 2019 (UTC) 6.Jinau (talk) 11:13, October 30, 2019 (UTC)
The merging so far has not been entirely seamless. There are some instances of articles being entirely overwritten (Vault). As well as other issues I see being introduced with imports:
•Capitalization: Discussed with Tag earlier about Vault, which I still find to be up in the air. But things like professional titles or military ranks being capitalized when they shouldn't be is apparent. (Colonel, captain, president, overseer in the middle of a sentence without the name following to make it a proper noun.)
•"Weasel words" conveying an opinion to readers instead of letting the reader form their own. (Curiously, strangely, obviously.)
•Some grammar is being changed to British English over American English.
•There have also been some speculatory statements being introduced (One can surmise...)
This seems more like the time isn't being being taken to proofread the edit and there's just copy and pasting going on. It's also snowballing into a larger workload of things that need to be corrected with each article receiving imported content. Great Mara (talk) 16:26, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
General principles
•Brush up on formatting styles by consulting the editing guidelines. It’s a brief document that touches on many of the fundamentals and is the standard we apply to the content. •Assume good faith. If someone drops a paragraph or edits a sentence incorrectly, it’s not evidence a grand conspiracy, but just human error. In these cases, just correct it or add information you believe was omitted, and maybe give the editor in question a heads-up. •Be civil and courteous when talking to other editors. Profanity, aggression, and other intimidating behavior have no place on the wiki, regardless of the user’s standing or edit count. •Get involved! The best way to ensure the merge between the wikis is a successful one is active editing or otherwise supporting active editors with positivity and feedback.
Communication channels
•We have been using a dedicated chatroom on the Nukapedia’s Fallout Shelter Discord server, freely available to all thus far. #merger-workspace and #editorial-bullpen are two of the primary means of communication, clarification, coordination, and other affairs related to the merge. •If you need something urgently or just want to highlight a discussion, ping @tagaziel#8836 or other users with editing experience (see Fallout Wiki:Administrators and moderators). •Use article talk pages as well to highlight potential improvements or content accidentally omitted during the merge. For clarity, make sure to explain the proposal in a bit of detail, so that a decision can be reached with due speed and attention.
Things to watch out for
•When working with content from The Vault, whether merging or proofreading, be sure to: •Ensure consistent decapitalization, especially with note and holotape names. This goes double for references. •In some cases, decapitalization is a judgment call, especially with some location places (e.g. Tygart Water Treatment Plant and Tygart water treatment plant; this depends on whether the editor considers it a proper noun or not). In doubt, go with what the name is on Fandom. •Tagaziel will run a bot to replace “terminals” with “terminal entries” at regular basis. The bot is dumb, though, so it might skip the odd link. If this is the case, update the link. •Some notes exist in multiple parts (eg. scattered journal pages). If a redlink exists to one part, update it with a redirect to the collected pages or to link to the collected pages.
Result pending, following discussion bureaucrats. Jspoel 16:26, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
The merge will be a pass, with 70% of the votes in favor. We feel we've addressed most of the (no-voters) concerns now with a discussion leading to guidelines which can be found here. We had liked to see some more support coming from it but hopefully that will come along the way onward now. There will be bumps in the road; but we must do our best to address/overcome them. Thanks to all for participating. Jspoel 18:01, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
As for The Vault and Nukapedia specifically, The Vault started off on Wikia. For many of the reasons why Wikia is bad, they decided to move off to get more freedom, taking their content which they worked on with them. After moving, Wikia refuses to shut down the old wiki because it makes them money.
For this reason, The Vault has proposed we look into a merger of both wikis, making it the best Fallout wiki that can be, combining our content. After due consideration, The Vault is prepared to merge their content to our wiki, here at Nukapedia, making it a homecoming of sorts.
In light of the voting results on the Nukapedia The Vault merge formal vote, the bureaucrat team have decided to put the voting process on hold. Many no voters' complaint is that there hasn't been a proper discussion yet, in which everyone's concerns can be raised.
It's been two weeks since the merge between our great Fallout Wikis began, following the enthusiastic response to Tagaziel's proposal presented by Jspoelstra in his blog post, announced on the front page and a site-wide alert notification. While we originally planned to vote once Wastelanders is...
It is updated far more frequently and it's articles, unbiased (no Bethesda/F3 hating which may stumble upon at The Vault). As I say, content wise not a great deal between them, can't really go wrong, personal tastes, and so forth.